“The first-fruit of your land shall you bring to the house of the Lord your God; Do not cook a kid in its mother’s milk”

What is the connection between these two commandments? What does cooking a kid in its mother’s milk have to do with the bringing of first-fruits to the Temple?

When we turn to the passage that describes the bringing of the first-fruits (Deuteronomy 26:1-11), we see that the farmer praises God, not only for the first-fruits of the land but also for all of the history of Israel. The farmer goes back to Jacob and describes how God brought us out of Egypt and gave us this beautiful land. “And now” the farmer declares “I have brought the first-fruits of the land”.

Let’s get a reality check. For all we know this farmer may be an elderly man who has been bringing his first-fruits to the Temple every year. His father and grandfather before him may have been doing the same – as well as his grandfather’s grandfather. How does appreciation for the exodus relate to the yearly routine of bringing first-fruit to the Temple?

The answer is that in service of God there is no such thing as “routine”. Every day is a fresh start in service of God. All of the past, including the exodus from Egypt, was just a preparation for this moment. When the farmer brings his basket of first-fruits, he doesn’t see a monotonous repetition of “more of the same”. Instead he looks at a bright new future for which all of the past only serves as a preparation and a lead-up.

The mother’s milk represents the past. The kid represents the fresh new future. How often do we destroy the freshness of the moment by “cooking it” in the milk of the past? The Torah is teaching us a life-lesson. The past is here to nourish and to sustain the future – but not to “cook” it. The future is its own entity with its own flavor – don’t stifle it with the past.

This lesson is especially pertinent to our relationship with our children. Each child is its own world – the experience of the parents are here to give life-sustaining nourishment and guidance – but not to stifle the individuality of the child.

This lesson spills over into our every-day lives. Don’t let the pain/dreariness/failures of yesterday destroy today. Today will always be the most important day in your life – live it to its fullest.

The literary setup of the book of Exodus is pretty straightforward. It begins with the experience of the Jewish people in Egypt. The book describes the miraculous deliverance from slavery. We move from there to the Sinai revelation.  So far so good. Chapter 25 continues with the Tabernacle - the ultimate purpose of the exodus and the Sinai experience; where God comes to dwell amongst His people (- see Ezekiel 37:28). From that point on (ch. 25), the narrative proceeds in a logical fashion – the instructions for the Tabernacle, the sin of the Golden calf, Moses’ intercession and the building of the Tabernacle.

Chapters 21 thru 23 pose a literary question. Why are these chapters; chapters that discuss the technical details of judicial law, placed between Sinai and the Tabernacle, two  highlights of Israel’s history? We can understand that “Law” follows the revelation at Sinai in a natural way, but why these laws? Why the focus on monetary disputes between one man and the next; laws that in most societies are only studied by judges and lawyers?

The opening phrase in chapter 21 only highlights the question: “These are the judgments that you (Moses) should place before them (Israel).” The implication is that all of Israel must know about these laws, the men the women and the children. Why would children need to study these laws? Why would a child living in 21st century U.S.A. need to know the laws concerning one ox goring another? And why are these laws placed in such a central setting?

The answer is that knowledge of these laws form the foundation of our relationship with God.

The study of God’s Law lights up our path (Psalm 119:105). When we study the Law we learn to look at the world the way God wants us to look at the world. The laws pertaining to justice heighten our sensitivity to justice, which is the basis of a relationship with God. The most elemental concept in our relationship with God is the concept that as creations of God, we owe everything to God (1Chronicles 29:14). This concept is only meaningful to the degree that we appreciate the ideal of justice. As long as we fail to appreciate that what belongs to someone ought to go to that someone – then the fact that God is our Master is an empty concept. It is only to the degree that we appreciate that each must get what is rightfully theirs that we can appreciate our relationship with God.

God’s Law is the grace that God provided so that we can learn to love Him. Through God’s Law we learn to appreciate what He has done and what He continuously does for us. Though the study of God’s sense of justice, we learn where it is that we stand in relationship with Him.

The study of God’s justice and the practice of the same is the basis for knowing God (Jeremiah 22:16, Micah 6:8). There is no Tabernacle without justice and there is no closeness to God without justice (Isaiah 58:2). The justice of the Law is the continuation of Sinai and the foundation of the Tabernacle.

Let us take hold of the grace that God has extended to us by providing us with this light. That light will yet illuminate the world.

http://thecontroversyofzion.com/2012/02/my-sixth-response-to-yisroel-blumenthal-jewish-objections-to-jesus-our-mighty-god-and-eternal-father/

Dalton

First; a word on the purpose of this discussion.

You are quick to accuse me of using “circular reasoning”. You seem to be under the assumption that the only reason I do not “see” what you see in the text of Isaiah is because of my “predisposed suppositions” that have no foundation in the teaching that we received from God.

You realize, of-course, that I could throw that accusation right back at you. I could argue that the only reason you see what you see in the text is because of your “predisposed suppositions”. But the purpose of this discussion is to put facts on the table – and let the audience decide which one of us is using circular reasoning. That is the difference between persuasion and education.

The one argument of mine that you chose to address in your previous post (- my assertion that the incarnation is like saying that good is bad) is not based on a “predisposed assumption” as you assert. Please read the following posts and address them or retract your accusation.

http://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2011/12/16/deuteronomy-415-isaiah-4519/

http://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2010/10/24/isaiah-44/

Concerning Isaiah 9:6

You missed the entire point of my post concerning this passage.

My point was that it is on your shoulders to prove without any doubt that this passage teaches us to direct worship to one who possesses all of the properties of a man. You completely failed to do that.

I showed you that there are two ways of translating the verse that utterly negate your interpretation. I also showed you that even according to your translation (which I actually accept as the most logical), the verse is not teaching what you would have it say. Yet you accuse me of “putting all my eggs into one basket”?! How do you justify such an accusation? Did you at all read what I wrote?

My point with showing alternative translations was that there are other viable ways of reading this passage. If you want to argue that these translations are bizarre and absurd, you will have to acknowledge that they are far less absurd and bizarre than the belief that a man can somehow be God.

You want me to read Isaiah 9:6 in context of Isaiah 10:21 – no not 10:21 – but two words that you cherry picked out of 10:21 – yet you want me to ignore all of the contextual evidence that I presented to you in my fifth post?

If you read this verse in context – you are left with no question that it is talking of Hezekiah. The prophet made that abundantly clear. You have your own little problems with what the prophet said – you cannot fathom how it is that King Hezekiah fulfilled these prophecies. That doesn’t give you a right to tamper with the words of the prophet.

(As an aside – If you believe that a man can be God – and you also believe that the only way that this prophecy can be fulfilled is by having a man be God – than how do you know that Hezekiah isn’t that “mystery god-man” that the prophet was referring to?)

In any case, your lack of appreciation for Hezekiah’s career and your exaggeration of Jesus’ career needs to be put in perspective.

Assyria was the most powerful nation of the time. It was the scourge of the land. In one night the world’s greatest superpower became a banana republic. Their entire army dies in one night and the city it threatened with annihilation is saved. On the same day, the sun goes back in the sky and turns afternoon into morning. How does this compare to the healing of a few lepers and some questionable sightings of a crucified man?

“Oh, but that was in the world of objective reality – I was talking about the influence that Jesus had on the subjective minds of men” – you say.

Yes; I recognize that Jesus was the most influential man on earth, but is that something to be proud of? The Crusades, the Inquisition and the holocaust were only the apex of years of oppression and pain – is that the influence that you are pointing to? And what Jesus did to the Jews was nothing compared to what he did to the Gentiles. The Jews were physically oppressed in his name – but the Gentiles had darkness poured into their souls. The Jews suffered the holocaust – the followers of Jesus perpetrated it.

“But that was not the “real” Jesus” – you protest. The “real” Jesus loves the Jewish people.

For argument’s sake – I’ll buy your story (- just don’t try it in a court of law – the jury will never accept the argument: “that wasn’t the real me”.) So we have two incarnations of Jesus; the “fake” Jesus and the “real” Jesus. Which one of these two was more influential? For many dark centuries, no-one ever heard of the “real” Jesus. The blood-soaked pages of history should tell you that it was the fake Jesus who was far more influential than his brother.

One more point on the world of subjective reality.

You seem to be under the impression that Jesus’ career somehow “eclipsed” the miracles that God performed on behalf of Hezekiah. I actually agree with you – and let me explain.

An eclipse is when a body of darkness obstructs the light. It sometimes allows some light to shine through – but after everything is said and done – an eclipse is an obstruction of light. – That, my friend, is Jesus for you.

Since you seem to enjoy verbosity – I will take the liberty to elaborate.

The greatest light is God’s truth. The greatest happiness of humanity is to receive that light – and God promised that humanity will one day merit to receive that light (Isaiah 60:3). At the time of creation, God planted certain basic truths into the hearts of human beings. This is our ability to sense right from wrong, to enjoy truth and to be repulsed by falsehood. God also chose a nation for Himself, and He planted certain truths into the heart of this nation (Deuteronomy 4:35). For many centuries the Jewish people walked with this truth, but their Gentile neighbors did not appreciate it. The miracles that God performed for Hezekiah represented a turning point in history. From that point on, the Gentile nations began to seek the God of Israel (Isaiah 19:18). The phenomena of Gentiles seeking the God of Israel continued to grow – until the time of the eclipse.

Christianity came and rode the light in order to spread the darkness.

Christianity is not entirely evil, if it would be, it wouldn’t be so evil. If Christianity were completely evil, no-one would give it a second glance, and it would have harmed no-one. Christianity took some of the truths that God gave the world, and claimed them for herself. There are some truths, or half-truths, that Christianity does share with the world, but it wants the world to credit her; Christianity, as the source of light. It is like someone who steals all of your money and wants you to be his eternal slave when he returns some of it back to you.

There are three primary truths that Christianity twisted for the detriment of all men; the witness nation, the Messianic hope and the relationship that God shares with every one of His creations. (There are actually several more, but I will try to keep it brief.)

The Jewish people are God’s witness nation. There is no question that we disappointed God time and time again, but God’s purpose can never be thwarted. God taught us who it is that we are to worship, and who it is that all of mankind will one day worship (Deuteronomy 4:35, Isaiah 54:5). After more than 3000 years, the word; “Jew”, is still associated with the worship of the One Creator of all – and the word; “Jew” is still associated with a repudiation of the worship of any other entity.

The world began learning this truth from us – particularly after the spectacular destruction of the Assyrian army.

Along came Christianity and taught the world that the Jewish people are “false witnesses”. The Jewish people testify that they were taught by God who it is that we are to worship – but Christianity declares – “Don’t believe them”. Christianity rode the reputation of our prophets, but Christianity shut the mouth of those who ratified the authenticity of those same prophets. Christianity rode the glory that was added to David’s throne through Hezekiah, but they taught the world that Hezekiah was a failure.

That is the first eclipse of Christianity – they eclipsed the testimony of God’s witnesses.

The next truth distorted by Christianity is the Messianic hope. God told the Jewish prophets that He has a plan of peace for all mankind (Zephaniah 3:9). The Jewish prophets planted a seed of hope in the heart of mankind – a hope that inspired many to persevere through the greatest trials. This hope is God’s love for all mankind.

Along came Christianity and usurped that hope for itself. Christianity invented a concept of a “new election” – an election that the prophets said nothing about (and I challenge you Dalton, show me ONE verse from the Jewish Scriptures which indicates that there will be a new election on the basis of devotion to an individual). Christianity taught the world that if you want the Messianic hope – you must worship our Jesus. Christianity stole the hope that rightfully belongs to all of mankind and tries to persuade people that the only place it can be purchased is in their store.

(It always struck me as odd, that the election of Israel according to the Bible means greater responsibility and greater punishment (Amos 3:2), while the Christian “election” is a free ticket to “eternal life”.)

That is the second eclipse of Christianity – Christianity eclipsed the universal truth of the Messianic hope.

The most important truth that Christianity eclipses is the relationship that God shares with every one of His creations.

When Jesus said: “No-one comes to the Father, but through me”, it seems like he was saying something about himself, but he was not. Jesus was making a statement about you and about me and about every man and woman that inhabit God’s earth.

Jesus was teaching that you cannot have a direct relationship with your Creator. Jesus falsely taught that there is a barrier between the Creator and His creations – and he offers himself as the only way to overcome this otherwise “insurmountable barrier”. This teaching is false.

The deepest need of every human being is the need for a relationship with God. The inner core of our being yearns to connect to its Creator. Our Creator knows this (obviously). Just as He provided for our physical needs; we have air to breath, water to drink and food to eat – He provided us with our deepest need. All we need to do is to open our hearts a little. We would then recognize in every beat of our hearts – a caress from God. We would feel every breath as an embrace, and we would recognize that He carries us constantly as a mother cradles her infant. After all, it is He who gave us existence to begin with, it is He who designed our heart and keeps it beating and it is He who constantly and lovingly sustains every aspect of our lives. There is nothing closer to us than our Creator. All we need to do is to recognize these truths and call upon Him with sincerity – but Christianity came and eclipsed this truth.

Now Dalton, I recognize that you may find it difficult to reject the man who taught you to see it as if all of your inalienable rights are coming from him. But I am not asking you to reject him. Just do what the Jewish people have been doing for the past 2000 years – ignore him. If you ignore him long enough – he will go away. He only thrives on your attention. In fact, as it is with every idol, his entire existence is only the product of the attention that the worshipers pay to him.

Dalton, I encourage you to join the swelling ranks of Jews and Gentiles who direct all of their religious devotion to our common Creator and to Him alone. We stand together, Jew and Gentile, with one heart, a heart filled with a pure and unadulterated love for God that is not eclipsed in any way. A dedication that is predicated on God’s universal principles of justice and charity -Jeremiah 9:23; 22:16; Micah 6:8; Isaiah 9:6 (7). The Jewish prophets predicted that eventually all of mankind will stand shoulder to shoulder in service of the One God of Israel. There is no reason for you to wait. It is your inalienable right.

http://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2011/05/26/isaiah-222/

Sincerely yours

Yisroel

The book of Isaiah can be divided into two parts. The first part of the book (ch. 1 – 36) builds up towards the Assyrian invasion and the destruction of Sennacherib’s army. The second part of the book (ch. 40 – 66) focus on the times beyond the Assyrian invasion of Judah. The central chapters (36 – 39) describe how God miraculously crushed the Assyrian invasion and healed Hezekiah of his sickness.

The story of Hezekiah serves as the backdrop for the entire book of Isaiah. All of Isaiah’s words of rebuke and all of the precious words of comfort and hope that gave our nation the strength, not only to survive, but to persevere and to thrive, are hinged on the Hezekiah narrative.

I believe that a study of Isaiah 14:24 – 26 can help us understand the literary design of the book of Isaiah.

“The Lord of hosts has sworn so saying; if not as I planned, so shall come about and if not as I have devised, so shall be established. To break Assyria in My land, I will trample him on My mountains, his yoke will be removed from upon them (Israel), and his burden will be removed from upon his (Israel’s) shoulder. This is the plan that is devised against all the land, and this is the hand that is outstretched against all the nations.”

This brief paragraph follows a lengthy description of the downfall of Babylon, not Assyria (14:3-23). The prophet is teaching us that the destruction of Assyria serves as God’s paradigm, a divine template, for the destruction of many nations.

Assyria’s desire to conquer Jerusalem was coupled with a contempt for God (Isaiah 37:23). This anger towards God inspired the Assyrian king to attack God’s firstborn son here on earth; the Jewish people (Exodus 4:22, Jeremiah 31:8). Sennacherib brought all of his might to bear against the Jewish people, and God destroyed him. The destruction of the Assyrian hordes brought light to those who heard of the event and who felt its impact. They learned that those who trust in God, as Hezekiah did, will ultimately be vindicated, and they learned that no power exists aside from God. God alone was exalted on that day.

This then is God’s template for history.

Throughout history, those who hated God, hated His people as well. Most people who have a heart for God will agree with Winston Churchill’s assessment of Hitler. Churchill believed that Hitler was the embodiment of all evil. When Churchill was criticized for making a pact with Joseph Stalin, Churchill responded with the following parable drawn from his Christian world-view: “If Hitler were to invade hell, I would not hesitate to ally myself with the devil himself if that would help to defeat Hitler”.

Think about it; the most evil man that walked this planet hated the Jew. Hitler hated the most secular Jew even more than he hated the most righteous Christian.

Because the Jew is God’s firstborn son; perhaps a wayward son, but a son nonetheless.

Throughout history, God’s enemies persecuted the Jew. And throughout history, the Jew served as God’s mountain upon which these wicked people were crushed. But the prophets foretold of another event, a repeat of the Assyrian invasion, on a greater scale.

Ezekiel prophesied (as did Zechariah 12:3, 14:2) about a great attack upon Jerusalem. An attack that will include all of God’s enemies (Ezekiel 38:15). And God will crush them as he crushed Sennacherib before them – and the God of Israel will be exalted on that day (Ezekiel 38:23).

When the evil is crushed and God’s people are vindicated, then God alone is exalted. It will be then that all the nations will together stand shoulder to shoulder to serve the One Creator of all.

Isaiah saw all of this, but not all at once. He first thought that the Assyrian invasion and its spectacular failure will be the peak and the culmination of history. But God told him that it was not to be. Had God’s plan been finished with Hezekiah and Sennacherib, then the impact would have remained local, it would have mainly affected the Jews and the few nations that surrounded them (i.e. Egypt and Assyria – Isaiah 19:18-25).

God informed Isaiah that he will serve as His prophet for a much grander vision, a vision that encompasses all of mankind (Isaiah 49:6).

Isaiah was God’s mouthpiece to bring a vision of peace for all mankind. Isaiah was the one who painted the hope of God’s Messianic plan in the hearts of all humanity. A vision of peace and harmony, a vision of love and truth and the hope for a world covered with the knowledge of God as the waters cover the sea.

http://thecontroversyofzion.com/2012/02/my-fifth-response-to-yisroel-blumenthal-jesus-is-god-the-shema-meets-immanuel/

Dalton

Thank you for proving my original point.

It was YOU who asked that this discussion be moved to the text.

Please stick to your own guidelines for this conversation.

As for your most recent diatribe – You could read my blog, you could read the articles I put up on the Jews for Judaism website and you will find that I have already demonstrated the emptiness of your position.

My aim in this blog is to bring clarity to this discussion. I thank you for your help in disseminating God’s truth.

Yisroel

http://thecontroversyofzion.com/2012/02/my-fourth-response-to-yisroel-blumenthal-the-mystery-of-the-godman/

Dalton

I will be using the numbering of the verses from the Hebrew Bible.

Translation

I will first tell you that the verse can be read as follows: “The Mighty God, Father unto eternity and Prince of peace is planning a wonder”. In other words, the name of the child is a complete sentence describing the work of God. Just to help you with the Hebrew, I’ll do this word for word.

Pele – a wonder

Yoetz – He is planning (this is the key – this word can be a verb and is not necessarily a noun)

E – l – God

Gibbor – mighty

Avi – Father

Ad – until (generally translated as: “everlasting”)

Sar – minister

Shalom – Peace

The second thing I will tell you is that the verse does not necessarily say “Mighty God” or “Everlasting Father”. The very same Hebrew phrase that is translated here as: “Mighty God”, is used in Ezekiel to describe Gentile warriors in the plural format (Ezekiel 32:21). The Hebrew word: “Ad” – which is translated as everlasting – can also mean spoils as in Genesis 49:27 and Isaiah 33:23. In other words the verse reads: wonderful counselor, mighty warrior, father of spoils, prince of peace”.

The third thing I will tell you is that the name “Hezekiah” actually means: “Mighty God”.

Finally I will comment on the words: “and he called his name”. The Scriptures use the term: “called a name” in a sense that is not necessarily literal (e.g. Ruth 4:11). In fact, as far as I know, no-one in history was literally called by any of these names. The concept of “calling a name” can mean; making a mark, this child will be remembered for these concepts; in the minds of men these concepts will forever be associated with the memory of this child.

The destruction of the Assyrian army at the gates of Jerusalem was the fulfillment of this prophecy. That event is inextricably tied up with the memory of Hezekiah king of Judah.

Context

The passage in which this verse appears talks of a military threat being miraculously eliminated, namely the threat of the Assyrian king; Sennacherib. Verse 3 (chapter 9) talks of the yoke of his (the nation’s) burden and the rod of her oppressor being broken as on the day of Midian. The “day of Midian” was when God miraculously put an army of multitudes to flight before Gideon’s small band of 300 (Judges 6 and 7). This is a clear parallel to the miraculous annihilation of Sennacherib’s troops (as described in Isaiah 37, 2Kings 19, and 2Chronicles 32). The various phrases in this passage are repeated over and over again in the book of Isaiah as reference to the destruction of Sennacherib’s army. The expressions “yoke” and ‘‘burden” (9:3) are used in 14:25 with a direct reference to Assyria’s army being broken. The expressions “staff” and “rod” (9:3), can be found in 10:5,24,27, and 30:31, clearly talking of this same event. The reference to Midian (9:3) is repeated in 10:26 in relation to Sennacherib’s destruction. The concept of “burning” as a description of this miracle (9:4), is mentioned in 10:16,17 and again in 30:31 and 31:9 as a description of the death of Sennacherib’s soldiers. The concept of “counsel” (9:5) is used in 14:26,27 to speak of this miracle. The words “mighty God” (9:5), are repeated in 10:21 to describe Israel’s return to God after this amazing event. The words “zeal of the Lord of Hosts” is repeated in 37:32 in direct reference to this miraculous event.

Do you think that all of these are mere coincidences?

Timing

Verse 5 tells us that the child HAS been born. In other words when Isaiah spoke these words the child was already born.

Overall Context (Totality of Scripture)

I want to contrast your usage of this passage with Exodus 20:3 and Deuteronomy 4:15.

1) The passages that I quote are COMMANDMENTS – the passage you quote is not.

2) The Divine Author of Scripture put His finger on the passages that I presented – and said – here is where I am teaching you something about who it is that you are to worship and who it is that you are not to worship. It was God who made it clear that He wants us to associate the passages that I quoted with the concept of worship of the divine. The passage that you presented is placed by the Divine Author in a completely different context. It is the Christian theologian who must highlight this passage as a central teaching on the nature of God. The Divine Author of Scripture did NOT highlight this passage in that way.

http://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2012/01/12/forms-of-communication/

3) Comprehensive.

If I needed to formulate a statement that would succinctly describe the Jewish position on the question of who it is that we are to worship – I would say: “we worship the God who revealed Himself to our ancestors at Sinai – as our ancestors preserved that revelation”. This sentence is just a rewording of the passages I quoted – plus a bit from Deuteronomy 4:9. The complete sentence that expresses my world-view on this subject is contained in the passages that I quoted.

Now you go and try to formulate a complete succinct sentence on the basis of the passage that you quoted that would describe your belief.

4) No-one ever presented an alternative explanation for the passages that I quoted that would render them irrelevant to this discussion. Many Jewish and Christian scholars have disputed your interpretation of the passage you presented.

http://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2012/02/07/thomas-on-isaiah-95-6/

5) Who is speaking?

The passages that I quoted describe God Himself presenting a teaching to the entirety of the nation – not through the medium of a prophet or a book – but directly – God to Israel.

Let me explain something to you about communication. The point of communication is NOT to get the idea out of the communicator’s head – but rather to get the idea into the head and heart of the target audience. If a teacher stands in a classroom and lectures – the words that the teacher spoke are not what was taught – it is the ideas that the students carry in their heads as they walk out of the classroom – THAT is what was communicated.

In the case of a human teacher – we can perhaps assume that the teacher did not properly calibrate his or her words – and the students walked away with an understanding different than what the teacher intended. With God we cannot say this. God actually declares that Israel understood His teaching properly – Deuteronomy 4:35.

The passage that you quoted was presented to us through the medium of a prophet. Every Jewish prophet expected their words to be understood in light of the teaching that Israel carried in their hearts since God put it there at Sinai.

My Interpretation

The child that this verse speaks of will be a cause for the salvation of the Jewish people from the oppression of Sennacherib. It was Hezekiah’s prayer that was the catalyst for God’s intervention on behalf of His people (Isaiah 37:21, 2Kings 19:20). Isaiah is comforting his people. Although Ahaz (Hezekiah’s father) was evil, but his child was holy and righteous. In the merit of this holy child, who bore upon his shoulders the government of his people, God will display His wondrous counsel, His might, His mastery over time (Isaiah 38:8), together with a peace that lasted as long as Hezekiah lived (Isaiah 39:7).

Your Problems with the Jewish Interpretation

Please forgive my temerity in assuming that I know what you will ask me – but since this conversation is public – I am sure that someone reading this is asking the following questions.

1) Question: How can you say that the passage is talking of Hezekiah? Doesn’t the passage say that there will be no end to the peace?

Answer: The very same words “en ketz” are used in Isaiah 2:7 as a description of the chariots and treasures of sinful Israel. The words do not necessarily have to be understood in their most literal sense. (See below for some more).

2) Question: Doesn’t the prophet say that the peace and the government will last from now and forevermore? Didn’t Hezekiah’s kingdom go down in smoke only a century and half later with the Babylonian invasion? How can this be talking of Hezekiah?

Answer: The peace and the government that the prophet is referring to, is the peace and government of David’s throne. David is still the king of Israel and will be so forever. Even the Messiah will be sitting on David’s throne – in other words – he will be filling David’s shoes. You may be surprised to learn that David is still the king of Israel – even now. Through the songs of his holy Psalms, David still leads the heart of all who are loyal to God. My loyalty today is to the dynasty of David, the king after God’s heart. And my loyalty to the Messiah will be an expression of the loyalty that is already in my heart now. The Davidic throne is a concept that lives on in the minds and in the hearts of men – Jews and Gentiles. The Davidic throne will forever represent mankind’s submission towards God.

Hezekiah, as a legitimate successor to his ancestor David – made a lasting impact on that concept that already existed. His career added a new layer of meaning to the goal of mankind’s submission towards God. The miraculous destruction of Sennacherib’s army and the salvation of Jerusalem that were done by God in the merit of Hezekiah’s prayer – gave us a completely new understanding of the Davidic throne and what it stands for. These events presented a picture for posterity, and they presented a hope for posterity. It was against the backdrop of these spectacular miracles that the prophecies of Isaiah were pronounced. God chose to articulate the Messianic hope of all man-kind through the words of Isaiah and in the context of the destruction of Sennacherib’s army. It is the words of Isaiah that were chosen to be written on the side of the U.N. building, and it is Isaiah’s metaphor of the lion lying with the lamb that is most often used to describe God’s plan of peace for all humanity.

The miracles that were performed in Hezekiah’s times are still reverberating, and they will continue to do so until the coming of the Messiah and beyond.

Concluding Statements

You may perhaps disagree with what I’ve written here, but let me put our disagreement into context.

There are actually two separate disagreements that we have about the Christian doctrine of the incarnation; we disagree as to whether the concept is even possible, and we disagree as to whether it actually happened. These are two separate disagreements.

My position is that to point to a man, who looks like a man, smells like a man, and does everything else like a man – and say that this man is somehow the God of Israel – is even more impossible and absurd than saying that good is bad, that light is dark and that east is west. This is not a “predisposed assumption”, but a truth that is based on the teaching of God (you could start with Isaiah 44).

That is my position on our first disagreement.

My second disagreement with you (and you seem to believe that this is our only disagreement) is that when you say that the incarnation actually happened, I say it did not. I say this primarily because of my position on our first disagreement, but I say this for other reasons as well. These are two separate disagreements.

You will acknowledge, I assume, that the burden of proof rests entirely on your shoulders. It is not enough for you to raise a question, a doubt in the minds of men, that this could have perhaps happened. You need to bring conclusive evidence that erases any shadow of doubt. The reason I say this, and the reason that I expect you to acknowledge this is simply because if you are wrong, then directing worship towards the man you are pointing to would represent the deepest violation of Israel’s covenant with God, and it would represent the most perfidious rebellion from created towards Creator.

It’s your turn Dalton.

Sincerely yours

Yisroel

P. S. Dalton, you may not be aware, but as part of my “anemic” contribution to this discussion I have already discussed this passage. I would humbly suggest that you find the articles I am referring to on my blog and on the Jews for Judaism website.

 http://thecontroversyofzion.com/2012/02/my-third-response-to-yisroel-blumenthal-the-hope-of-the-world-and-the-mercy-of-god/

Dalton

Thanks for your post. I’ve responded to one of your comments about a year ago (it seems you still haven’t read my blog). Isaiah responded to another one of your comments several thousand years ago (I still wonder if you have ever read his book in its true context).

Your claim that Jesus is one and the same with the Creator is obviously fallacious as I have demonstrated in this little parable:

http://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2010/11/10/knock-knock/

Your unfounded accusation that my opinion is based on a predisposed assumption tells me how closely you’ve been paying attention to my words.

Your comments about a “distant” God lead me to ask you the following question. So do you believe that before Jesus was born; God was a “distant” God?

It may also help you to read the following posts:

http://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2012/01/04/acknowledgment-and-denial/

http://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2011/08/04/trust-grattitudeand-the-joy-of-obedience/

Isaiah responded to your comments about a “high and lofty” God here:

Isaiah 57:15.

I have a question for you about some of your previous posts.

In your first post (entitled “Anemic”) you castigated me for failing to consider the scholarship of Dr. Brown. You end your second post (entitled “Open Response”) with a quote that exalts foolishness and denigrates scholarship. How do you reconcile these two arguments?

You seem to be interested in the “blindness” argument. You will perhaps appreciate the following:

http://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2011/12/04/a-tale-of-two-schools/

Before we continue this dialogue, I repsectfully request that you read what I’ve written on these subjects – then you have a free hand to critique my position.

With appreciation for your willingness to dialogue

Yisroel

“For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called wonderful counselor, mighty God, everlasting father, prince of peace.” (NIV)

However, as with so many apologetic proof texts, the interpretation which insists that Isaiah is speaking about the messiah being God is a shaky one, and is widely rejected by scholars, even among many conservative Christian scholars. A selection of scholars on the subject, and although their perspectives and conclusions vary, demonstrate a wide agreement in some areas. Of course one will always be able to find dissenting views, but these quotes demonstrate that one of the core weapons in the apologetic ‘proof text’ arsenal is not being interpreted nearly at all the way it is often argued.

“The second title, ‘mighty god,’ should not be understood in a belatedly substantive, trinitarian category nor as a claim of divinity. Rather, the language means that the new king will be filled with all the powers (especially military) that are required.” Isaiah: 1 – 39, Volume 1 By Walter Brueggemann

“…subject of [Isaiah’s] oracle is clearly identified as a Davidic royal descendant – not a deity himself, but simply a charismatic human agent of the deity. The exalted titles in Isaiah 9:6, therefore, must be seen as applied not to the Davidic king but to the God whose powers are made manifest in him.” Scripture and other artifacts: essays on the Bible and archaeology in honor …By Michael David Coogan, J. Cheryl Exum

“Neither Ps 45.6 nor Isa 9.6 need be taken as implying that the king is literally thought of as a god, which would, as we have seen, appear to be contrary to the Old Testament view of the king…in both Psalm 45 and Isaiah 9 the context is that of the king as a warrior…” Psalms By John Day

“So Isaiah 9 articulates hope for a perfect king, though not one who was divine in our sense of the term.” Introduction to the Prophets. By Paul L. Redditt

“Here Isaiah extols Hezekiah in terms familiar to the King-Zion complex. And Isaiah links the ruler’s identity to YHWH, describing this king as a mighty god, a father whose rule does not end, a leader who will bring security. Granted, Hezekiah is not a god here. YHWH’s zeal is the active principle, for YHWH acts to “establish” and “uphold” the Davidic ruler.” An Introduction to the Hebrew Bible: A Thematic Approach. By Sandra L. Gravett, Karla G. Bohmbach, F. V. Greifenhagen

“Most scholars understand this poetic language as the hyperbole of Eastern “court style.” The king was extolled in extravagant terms, especially on festival occasions (enthronement, royal wedding). In the Old Testament there was no serious departure from the view that the king was God’s agent, anointed for a task. This is undoubtedly true in the well-known messianic passage in Isaiah 9 (“unto us a child is born, a son is given”) where the coming king is given the most glorious throne titles: “Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace” (Is. 9:6). The King, even the one who was to come, was not regarded as divine, ‘cosubstantial with the Deity.’” Contours of Old Testament theology By Bernhard W. Anderson, Steven Bishop

Hebrew Bible scholar Paul Wegner “…concludes that the names describe Yahweh rather than the child and that they are designed, like Isaiah’s own name (“Yahweh is salvation”) to point beyond the child to God.” Wegner paraphrased by Proverbs—Isaiah By Tremper Longman III, David E. Garland

Hebrew Bible scholar W.L. Holladay “…objects to the view that the titles in Isaiah 9:5 indicate that the king is receiving divine titles. Like other commentators, he argues that the titles are throne names given to the king as part of a coronation ode upon his accession. More specifically, the titles…reflect no more a divine attribution to the monarch than any theophoric names given to anyone in ancient Israel. The content of the names therefore would refer only to God and not to the king.” The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts. By Mark S. Smith

“In any case, the Hezekiah materials in Isaiah 36-39 serve as a literary counterpart for Isaiah 6:1-9:6, and Hezekiah as a theological foil for King Ahaz.” Dictionary of the Old Testament: historical books By Bill T. Arnold, Hugh Godfrey Maturin Williamson

“In chapter 9 the boy is a sign of coming quiet and peace in the land. The reference is very likely to Hezekiah, son of Ahaz, who would prove to be a righteous king.” Isaiah through the ages By Johanna Manley

“To Isaiah’s audience, this child could be none other than Hezekiah!” How the Bible Became a Book: The Textualization of Ancient Israel. By William M. Schniedewin

“The names ‘Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace’ are the reasons this poem has been interpreted traditionally as a reference to Christ. These names do not necessarily refer to the individual who bears them. Symbolic names are common in the prophets. The child Immanuel (“God is with us,” Isa. 7:14), born in 734 BCE, was not divine…” How to Read the Bible: History, Prophecy, Literature. By Steven L McKenzie

“Therefore, the title ‘Wonderful Counselor’ probably depicts this warrior-king as an extraordinary military strategist.” Handbook on the prophets: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, minor prophets. Robert B. Chisholm

“Modern scholarship dates this passage to the birth or ascension to the throne of King Hezekiah who ruled over Jerusalem from 727 to 698 BCE…” Christianity: A Biblical, Historical, and Theological Guide for Students. By Kathryn Muller Lopez, Glenn Jonas, Donald N. Penny

“Whether it was written specifically for Hezekiah or not, it now appears in the context of literature that was written in conjunction with the Syro-Ephraimite War and the years that followed. Consequently, the new king presupposed in the present context must be Hezekiah.” Isaiah 1-39: with an introduction to prophetic literature by Marvin Alan Sweeney

“Most scholars believe this passage is Hezekiah’s accession oracle.” An examination of kingship and messianic expectation in Isaiah 1-35. By Paul D. Wegner

Isaiah 9:5 (6) is one of a small selection of verses from the Hebrew Bible popularly used by apologists in an attempt to demonstrate that the Hebrew Bible speaks of the messiah being God. Even among scholars who believe Isaiah 9:6 describes a king who is ‘divine,’ that label does not mean the king is God. As Collins & Collins write in ‘King and Messiah as Son of God: Divine, Human, and Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature,’ the subject of Isaiah 9:6 was Hezekiah, and divinity meant one with divine attributes, but not God himself. Hezekiah was given these titles, say Collins & Collins, due to his “potential rather than his accomplishments.”

This text is widely seen as referring to Hezekiah, as depicting a king who would defeat Israel’s enemies, especially in battle, and even for scholars who say the king is being described as ‘divine,’ its primary referent was Hezekiah, and ‘divine’ does not describe a king who was actually God, but someone fully submissive to God. Therefore, Isaiah’s oracle in 9:5 (6) cannot be used to demonstrate Jesus’ deity.

http://thecontroversyofzion.com/2012/02/my-second-response-to-yisroel-blumenthal-the-judicial-hardening-of-israel/

Dalton

Thanks for your response. I appreciate the opportunity you give me to articulate my position yet again. As I said in my original post, education is a long drawn out and tedious process, but I know of no other process that is more rewarding.

About nasty responses from my fellow counter-missionaries, I can sort of sympathize with them. After all, you did attack me after having read only a fraction of what I’ve written and you presented no substantive arguments to back up your attack. Some of the arguments you have put forth are perceived by some to be anti-semitic. My intention is to respond to your arguments because I think I understand where you are coming from. I appeal to my fellow activists who strive for the honor of Israel’s God to be patient with my patience.

You contend that my message of One God who lovingly called forth all of existence into being is somehow “inferior”, while the message of the Christian Scriptures is the “hope” of both Jew and Gentile.

The message of the Christian Scriptures maligns and denigrates the God of Israel. According to the Christian Scriptures, the Creator of every soul allows no-one to approach Him unless they travel through the “mystery-path” of the trinity. According to the Christian Scriptures The One who lovingly you provided you with life even while you were sinning doesn’t have the mercy to forgive your sin without a blood offering. And the Christian Scriptures teach that men and women must direct their devotion to a man who lived and breathed just as themselves.

You call this a message of “hope”?!

The message of the Jewish Scriptures is that God is close to all who call upon Him with sincerity (Psalm 145:18). The message of the Jewish Scriptures is that God forgives the sinner on the basis of sincere repentance (Isaiah 55:7). And our holy prophets proclaimed that every inhabitant of this earth is subservient to no-one but the One who created them all (Zechariah 14:9).

That, my friend, is the hope of the world.

You spend much time preaching about the “blindness of the Jew”. You see this as a major Scriptural theme that, according to you, I ignore.

You may be surprised to learn that I do not ignore this theme at all. I fully recognize that our suffering in exile is a result of our hard-heartedness and our stubborn rebelliousness against God (Micah 7:9). But this has nothing to do with our discussion.

Despite all of our faults, God promised to preserve His truth and His spirit in our midst (Isaiah 59:21). The testimony that God established in Israel at Sinai will be available even to the last generation (Psalm 78:5,6). Nowhere in all of Scripture does it insinuate that we need to turn to the Gentiles to teach us how to read the books which are our own exclusive inheritance (Deuteronomy 33:4, Psalm 147:19,20). And finally, God speaks to the last generation of Jews (Deuteronomy 4:30) and He points to the unique understanding that He granted our nation as the sign of the unbreakable nature of His covenant (Deuteronomy 4:35). The understanding that God granted us is the most precious possession of our nation; it is the deepest sign of God’s love for us. It is our loyalty to this truth that will be vindicated when the mask of blindness is removed from the face of the nations who reject this truth (Micah 7:10, Isaiah 25:7).

You take issue with my interpretation of Isaiah 49:1-7. You contend that Isaiah’s servant cannot be the righteous of Israel because the servant saves Israel. “How could Israel save Israel?” you ask.

If you would have taken the time to read the passage I sent you to, you would have found the answer to your question. Isaiah 51:16 calls upon God’s servant to proclaim to Zion: “You are My nation”. If you read the preceding verses, you will realize that the subject of verse 16 is one who sometimes forgets her Creator, yet this same servant is being called to bring a proclamation to Zion. It is the righteous of the nation who bear God’s message to the rest of the nation. Is this so difficult to understand?

You claim that my respectful request that you cease and desist from your efforts to redefine Judaism is “illegitimate”. You insist that my Judaism is a Judaism of the “flesh” while the Judaism that you proclaim is a “Judaism” of the “spirit”.

It is you who exalt a man of flesh and blood, while it is my Judaism that exalts God alone – so I don’t see how you can justify your comments about “flesh” and “spirit”. But I will put that aside for now. Instead I will try to teach you something.

Judaism is about marriage. A marriage between God and the Jewish people. A marriage is a type of relationship that redefines both parties – not only to themselves – but to the eyes of everyone. In marriage, the two partners agree to forevermore be identified as the spouses of each other. From the point of marriage onward, whenever someone sees the woman in the street, they will think of her as the wife of her husband – and whenever someone sees the man, they identify him as the husband of the woman he married.

The Jewish people are forever identified as the bride of God and God is forever identified as the God of the Jewish people. Not a people who are dead and buried, but a people who live on in every generation. When you see a Jewish man pray, you know who he is praying to, and you know who he is not praying to. The Jew doesn’t have to explain it to you. The explanation is already carved into the pages of history. Try as you may, you will not be able to silence the testimony of God’s witness.

One more thing before I sign off. You know; a groom doesn’t see any faults in his bride. That is how God created us. Now, there are different aspects of God’s relationship with His beloved nation. We are His children, we are His servants and we are also His beloved bride.

I leave you with the words our Groom whispered into our ear (Song of Solomon 4:7).

Sincerely yours

Yisroel

http://thecontroversyofzion.com/2012/02/an-open-response-yisroel-c-blumenthal/

Dalton (I hope its O.K. that I use your first name), I want to thank you for writing. You will find out that many Jewish people reading your words will see in them seeds of hatred, but I will not go there. I sincerely appreciate your writing. By putting your cards on the table, I know where you stand – and we can talk. As long as we can talk, there is hope that we can reach some level of understanding.

I intend to respond to your 3 points and to your challenge.

Point #1

You contend that our message is inadequate and our skills are not up to par.

I will not comment on my skills – I would be the first to agree with you that they are not up to par. I will however disagree with your assessment of the message I bear. It is not my message. It is the message that God Himself imparted to our nation (Deuteronomy 4:35). That message is not inadequate. That message is the hope of all mankind – Jew and Gentile alike (Isaiah 54:5).

Point #2

You contend that our “resistance” to the message of Jesus is part of a long historical continuum of hard-hearted Jews.

We don’t “resist” Jesus. We insist on remaining loyal to the God who loved us first. This is what we were chosen for and it is for this loyalty that we will be vindicated as the prophets promised (Isaiah 26:2).

Point #3

You contend that I had argued that Jews were somehow endowed with superior skills which give them an edge over the Gentiles in evaluating the claims of Jesus.

It is here that you most seriously misunderstood my point, and I thank you for pointing out to me how my point can be misunderstood.

When I say that the only ones qualified to evaluate the claims of Jesus were the Jews, I was NOT referring to superior skills that the Jews may or may not possess. I was referring to a social context – and let me explain:

All of Christendom agrees that before Jesus came on to the scene, God had already imparted truth to the Jewish people. All of Christendom acknowledges that it was the moral duty of the Jew to examine the claims of Jesus in light of the truth that had already been granted to them. All of Christendom agrees that as long as the Jew sees the claims of Jesus as contrary to the truth that God had already granted to them – then it is their holy and moral duty before God and man – to reject those claims.

What were those truths granted by God to the Jewish people before the advent of Jesus? My guess is that you would say: The Jewish Scriptures (and please don’t hesitate to correct me if I am wrong).

Here is my challenge to you. Try to read the Jewish Scriptures as a Jew would have read them before the advent of Jesus. Try to read those holy words as a personal message from a loving Father to His firstborn son – because that is what the Jewish Bible is. Try to develop a complete world-view on the basis of the Jewish Scriptures alone. And then, and only then, evaluate the claims of Jesus in the light of that world-view.

It is not impossible for a Gentile to do this. In fact, I know of many courageous Gentiles who have found the God of Israel by following this basic exercise. I believe that there are many more sincere truth seeking Gentiles that would take this step too.  However, it would help if their teachers would be more willing to help them in this process rather than hinder them.

As part of a response to the June 9, 2011 Line of Fire radio show, I wrote the following appeal to Dr. Brown: “The myth of the “blindness of the Jew” is an ugly stain in the history of mankind. Dr. Brown, instead of working to perpetuate this myth, I appeal to you to educate Christians of the fallacies of this myth. Explain to your audience that as long as the Jew sees the teachings of Christianity as a contradiction to the Scriptures with which we were entrusted by God – it is the moral duty of the Jew to REJECT those teachings. Encourage your audience to try to read the Jewish Scriptures as a Jew would have read them before the advent of Jesus. Encourage your listeners to attempt to acquire a complete world-view on the basis of the Jewish Scriptures alone – and ask them – how would they view the doctrines of Christianity in the light of the Jewish Scriptures.”

As part of his response, Dr. Brown wrote:

“I don’t see the rationality of your proposal as you see it. Furthermore, for Christians here, they know the Tanakh is true because of Yeshua. If your arguments against him were true and he was neither Messiah nor Savior nor Son of God, they would have no reason to continue to believe in the Tanakh either. They have come to know the God of Israel through him, they have received forgiveness of sins through him, their lives have been transformed through him, and if he was not who he claimed to be, then for them, the Tanakh would be another book of myths and fairy tales. I might as well tell you, “The Torah is true but there is no God, so follow the Torah.””

(You could read all of this in context – http://www.lineoffireradio.com/2011/06/09/dr-brown-answers-the-rabbis-part-2/#comments)

In my humble opinion, it is this attitude of Christian leaders that makes it so difficult for the Gentiles to acquire the proper tools to evaluate the claims of Jesus.

To summarize; my point about Gentiles not possessing the proper tools was a point about the Gentiles failing to read the Jewish Scriptures in its proper context – I was not making any elitist claims about “superior skills” of Jews over Gentiles.

Now for your challenge: You ask me to give you one good reason why the prophecy of Isaiah (49:1-7) cannot be the words of Jesus.

I will give you two reasons.

a)      You may have noticed that the words in 49:2 are directly parallel to the words in 51:16. If you read 51:16 in context (verses 12-16) you will see that God’s servant is the righteous of Israel.

b)      The servant that Isaiah speaks of brings glory to the God of Israel. Jesus brings glory to himself – not to the God of Israel.

You assert that to “love Jesus is to be a true Jew”.

Please; don’t try to redefine Judaism. According to the Jewish Scripture being a true Jew means being loyal to the calling of our nation to bear witness to the world that there is but One God (Deuteronomy 4:35, Isaiah 44:8). Of all the Jews who ever lived, it is Jesus who represents the most extreme antithesis of Israel’s calling before God. There can be no greater conflict with Israel’s calling than to direct the devotion of men towards an entity other than the One that God Himself taught us to worship.

I recognize that you may have a problem understanding some of what I wrote, or perhaps even all of what I wrote. I encourage you to read my blog. Many of the concepts that I touched upon here only briefly are articulated more clearly in various articles.

But most of all, I encourage you to write again. As long as we can still talk, there is hope that we can reach some level of understanding.